Mt. Ararat has the virtue of being the tallest mountain in the region.
Also, it has a very interesting formation, frozen in the ice, way, way up above the snow line. It's not currently accessible because of the politics of the region. Also, the face on which it's located is sheer and hard to get too.
Seems to me that the tallest mountain in the region would likely be the first one to poke out of a worldwide flood.
Seems to me that, if there really was a Noah's Ark, and if it's still around anywhere to be found, it would have to be locked in the permanent ice somewhere at the top of some very tall mountain. Ararat would fit that bill.
I've always said that if teams were able to get to the icy site on Ararat and actually found parts of a huge ark there, frozen in ice, with exotic animal droppings frozen in it, it would prove the Biblical literalists' case hands down.
I would agree.
Seems to me that, if there really was a Noah's Ark, and if it's still around anywhere to be found, it would have to be locked in the permanent ice somewhere at the top of some very tall mountain. Ararat would fit that bill.
I would disagree. But only on the assumption of your statement. Though a mountain maybe quite tall and quite massive, unless the ark were over the mountain range, it could miss a mountain altogether. And thus miss the tallest mountain in the area.
Secondly, they do claim that this finding is at the 13,000 foot level which would make it quite high.
Thirdly, I don't know anything about mountain naming in the past. But is it possible, even remotely, that these were the mountains described in the Bible?
And lastly, I am not at all questioning the Bibles account. I believe the Bible to be unerring. If there is a discreppancy, its with mans accounting.
What we have here...is a bunch of godless heathens...LMAO
The Ararat Mountains are where the latest item was found. The other sites have when approaced discovered to be rock formations. No, the latest finding just might be it.